Mary i felt the same when oyster cards were introduced tfl make us deposit our cash in their bank and penalise us if we don't. £2 cash bus fare is out of order the man is money and power hungry but with all his faults he cares about london. Boris is just warming up to become pm he isnt planning 10 years ahead

I sympathise with Syd's general complaint that bus passengers are treated as less important than the richer sections of society, who can afford to run cars or use trains to commute to regular paying jobs. However, there have to be numbers from TfL to test Eagle's impression. My own impression is that the service has held up.

My TfL source emails me

Some info on bus performance here http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/busoperators/1552.aspx . I think the standard measure we use are excess wait time (for high frequency services), punctuality (for low frequency services and kilometres lost. There are other indicators in those reports too. I suppose closest to your discussion is maybe bus km operated which has been increasing for the last 20-odd years but recently flattening out a bit. It’s in the Long Term Trend pdf in the link.

I can’t find anything that goes down to individual routes but you could always try a Freedom of Information request for anything really specific. The Travel in London report has loads of info on numbers of trips by mode and such like.

Eagle wrote:Can we change the heading. Most of us are decent citizens and therefore not campaigning for Livingstone.

Between now and election day - May 4th, I think - we'll have plenty of opportunity for more threads. My point in the OP was the demands of the local Labour Party machine meant that our local councillors, most of whom are as decent as the rest of us, I think, will be wasting their time and money of a campaign of marginal relevance for us here in Sydenham. And in any case, Ken is 7 to 4 against in the betting, which I guess is not hopeless, but surely not that motivating.

Well, and some of this is tongue in cheek: Aside from Tim Lund mentioning planning as a concern within the mayoral remit though not favouring one party or another, no-one's told me who to vote for or why (transport excepted as a given). Should I just wait (as an average voter) to get leaflets through the door? Sure I could go online and find out what mayoral duties are, but like leaflets all propaganda is made up of fine words, so perhaps those clearly on one side or the other could explain to average voter me how so, especially since both Ken and Boris have spoken against the party line during their time (other candidates are available). Thinking future rather than past, so any past loyalty is irrelevant if a floating voter looking forwards not backwards.

mosy wrote:Well, and some of this is tongue in cheek: Aside from Tim Lund mentioning planning as a concern within the mayoral remit though not favouring one party or another, no-one's told me who to vote for or why (transport excepted as a given).

Mosy - the other key area of Mayoral responsibility is policing - to put alongside planning and transport.

mosy wrote: Should I just wait (as an average voter) to get leaflets through the door? Sure I could go online and find out what mayoral duties are, but like leaflets all propaganda is made up of fine words

You are being slightly over cynical here. Chris Best helpfully posted this link to this web page put up by the MPA, which being run at a London-wide level has no particular reason to spin information comparing one borough with another, and where we are able to read that Lewisham is one of the two London boroughs with fewest people thinking the police are doing a good job. There's also masses more objective information out there, which with a bit of effort can be found - and TfL is in fact a beacon of light in this regard, thanks very largely, I'm told this this very cool woman

who stands in marked contrast to this rather less cool officer in Lewisham

who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Maybe she'll get the opportunity when her career takes her beyond the political constraints of LB Lewisham.

The problem is that our current political parties find it hard to adapt to this world. There was a very interesting piece in today's Guardian magazine about the relationship between policitians and the press, which identified the power of the press as working not by direct recommendations to readers as to how to vote, but by being able to stir up or suppress internal argument within parties, the point being that voters are turned off by parties which seem at war with themselves. So within a partly political machine, such as Chris Best, as Lewisham Labour's chief whip, tries to operate, the number one priority has to be to shut down external debate. I'm told there's plenty of internal debate, but by joining up to a party, individuals in effect commit themselves to the party line. Of course, to some extent it has always been thus, but the explosion of data, and opportunities to use it, I think makes it harder to maintain than previously. On these opportunities, this recent piece by Ben Goldacre is worth reading

If you've ever wished you were born in the 19th century, when there were so many obvious inventions and ideas to hook for yourself, then I seriously recommend you become a coder, because future nerds will look back on this time with the exact same envy. But that leap forward will be tediously retarded if we don't make the governmentallow us to use the pavements.

mosy wrote:, so perhaps those clearly on one side or the other could explain to average voter me how so, especially since both Ken and Boris have spoken against the party line during their time (other candidates are available). Thinking future rather than past, so any past loyalty is irrelevant if a floating voter looking forwards not backwards.

I thank you. *Bows politely*

As explained above, "those clearly on one side or the other" are deeply uncomfortable about debating anything in public, so you'll probably have to wait a while.

Here is the link for Ken's web site - http://www.kenlivingstone.com/ - front page is on Ken's Fare Deal - the fairer fares campaign will be a key plank of the Labour campaign in the London election next year, aiming to contact millions of Londoners in the coming months. Under Boris Johnson fares are planned to rise by 2 per cent above inflation every year and Ken will be holding a rally on 23rd November to mobilise supporters against the Tory fare rises and to campaign for a fare cut.

New figures confirmed the positive impact of Ken’s pledge to cut the fares whilst Boris Johnson is committed to year on year fare increases at 2% above inflation for 20 years, Ken has pledged to cut fares and keep them lower than Boris Johnson’s plan. A comparison of the effects of the two policies after four years confirms Londoners would not pay any fares after Nov 8th compared to Boris Johnson's 'high fare' policy which would see Londoners pay fares to the end of the year. Ken’s Fare Deal will see the average Londoner saving £800.

‘The choice in London is fares rising above inflation every year for 20 years under the current plans, or a “Fare Deal” for Londoners that cuts them and keeps them lower. Our alternative vision for London is all about being on the side of ordinary Londoners, instead of a just a few.

‘New figures show that under my Fare Deal, Londoners would effectively stop paying their annual fares costs by this week in November. Like Labour’s proposed VAT cut it would put money in peoples’ pockets and purses and into the economy, and help relieve the financial squeeze the majority of people are facing.

‘Fares are rocketing and so is the frustration of Londoners. Each year London fare payers pay far more in fares than even the Mayor’s own budget projections say they will. Last year alone that excess profit was over £700 million. Without touching either future investment budgets, reserves, or existing operating budgets we can put the excess money to work for Londoners by holding down their fares. It’s crazy to keep taking more money off people than we need to.

‘At a time when millions of Londoners are struggling, I do not believe enough is being done to help them. This Fare Deal plan will make a difference to millions.’

I think it's reasonable to say that Lewisham's political machinery is 'New Labour', by which I mean the Mayor and Cabinet system, which was very much a New Labour enthusiasm, and those who continue to operate it, such as Chris can perhaps therefore be called the same. At the time, 'New Labour' was an understandable project about winning power by finding out what ordinary people felt, rather than following Ken's lead. I think Ken is a natural leader - not the same thing, of course, as a team player - and very smart. He was able to identify policies which people would move towards, rather than just what people were thinking at the time. I doubt if those then and still in control of Lewisham's Labour Party were ever very keen on Ken, and I suspect they'd agree with you in private that he's had his day - but they just couldn't come up with a credible alternative as long as he insists on still strutting his stuff.

I find it interesting that Mayor and Cabinet systems are still in favour - there are more of them coming if the Localism Bill gets passed, as I'm sure it will, but I can't see that it's done much good here. On the other hand, I suspect it has been a good thing at the London-wide level, where planning, policing and transport clearly do need city wide co-ordination. I think that the problem with it here is that LB Lewisham is not a natural unit, in the way that London is, or on a smaller scale, Sydenham. As a result, we've ended up with a local political class whose existence is tied up with a political structure whose relevance is steadily decreasing - witness the recent transfer of running leisure services to the charity Fusion.

Tim - I don't necessarily disagree with the above, though I would caution against frustration about 'the system' leading to the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. I would be interested to know, however, what you think the local civic & politlcal structures will, or should, look like in the future.

Tim - I don't necessarily disagree with the above, though I would caution against frustration about 'the system' leading to the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. I would be interested to know, however, what you think the local civic & politlcal structures will, or should, look like in the future.

[Just in case anyone is wondering, I won't be campaigning for Ken]

Good to hear from you, Alex. As to future local & civic structures - the logic of London being the natural 'larger than immediately local' entity round here means that I'd see the Mayor / GLA eventually extending its remit into more areas. As to how this might happen - I think it will take a build up of dissatisfaction with the performance of local services currently being delivered by a mix of still local govt and now non local govt bodies. I think there's a historic analogy with the development of local govt in the 19th century, which led to reform such as that led by Joe Chamberlain in Brimingham, in which particular powers of countless different authorities, responsible for different services in areas whose boundaries were rarely aligned, were assumed by a powerful and effective local administration whose boundaries aligned with a real economic region. A few decades later the same movement led to the establishment of the London County Council, and the elimination of petty local power bases here - often parish vestries.

Of course, those occupying such structures were generally motivated by a real sense of public service, and did as good a job as they were able to - and I suspect that's much the same now, not only of Lewisham officers and councillors, but also those running organisations such as Fusion, which has just taken over leisure services, and Eco-computers which has now taken over some of Lewisham's libraries. But it is likely that the standards of various such services will in the course of time be seen as inadequate, and reasonable demands made for them to be better run. When this happens, and the need for some kind of political control arises, I think something London wide will be wanted.

Without London wide political control, there is a danger that smaller authorities - such as LB Lewisham - fail to compare their performance with others. The only reason we know that in LB Lewisham the police are not seen as doing a good job is that there is a London wide structure with no interest in glossing over more local problems. In an earlier posting, "The True Test of LB Lewisham" I wrote:

This was as much as admitted by Aileen Buckton when in response to a question of mine at a Sydenham Assembly, she said that Lewisham did not know where its strengths and weaknesses were, so all they could do was to cut 25% across all departments, instead of investing in efficient departments as Lewisham pooled services with other boroughs, and concentrate the cuts in poorly performing departments.

To illustrate what normal Londoners - and visitors - are looking for from local government, here's an email enthusiastically forwarded to me this morning.

Dear Mrs Lund

I am writing to let you know that you can now get real‑time bus information on your phone, Smartphone or online, which you might find useful if you travel by bus in London. It enables you to find out when your bus is due, no matter where you are, giving you control of your journey.

So if you are at work, home or out with your friends, you can now just text your bus stop code to 87287* or go online to find out when your bus will arrive at your stop.

To use the service, for more information or to view a short ’How to’ film, please visit tfl.gov.uk/buses

Yours sincerely,

Leon Daniels Managing Director, Surface Transport

How can this quality service happen at the London level, but not it seems in Lewisham? Well, I exaggerate, because there are areas in which Lewisham's service is excellent, but the overall point stands, I think. I don't have a complete answer to the question. Part of it may be to do with scale - the GLA has a larger budget, and the business case for something is stronger if the benefits extend over the 10 million + people who live or work in London than the 1/4 million who live in Lewisham. Similarly, top quality staff may be more motivated to work for the GLA. However, development costs for these services are incredibly small - how to do it is public knowledge, and there are plenty of high-quality hackers around, as well as qualified computer science, maths and other disciplines' graduates, for the market for their services to be very competitive.

No - the real problem is with Lewisham's political control. Even though evidence of how local government services could be delivered is flooding into ordinary citizens' inboxes, they just don't get it.

Eagle wrote:Trouble is Lewisham has been for many decades a one party state with all that entails.

Possibly, but if so, I think it's far from the whole story. After all, other inner London boroughs such as Southwark & Lambeth have had different parties in control, and I've little reason for thinking they have been better run. I suspect the problem is more to do with the relationship between local government such as ours, which are heavily dependent for financing on central government, and the central govt departments - principally the DCLG - that it comes from.

If anything is to improve, I think it can only happen via more useful information being supplied which will (a) enable the sort of improved services I mentioned as coming from TfL, and (b) allow comparisons between better and worse performing authorities. Until Eric Pickles announced he wanted 'new arrangements', the Audit Commission published an overall assessment of local authorities, with green or red flags awarded for some broad areas. Lewisham got just one flag - green - for the quality of its community engagement - which is the sort of thing policy wonks who think about such things care about rather more than ordinary citizens who don't want to be fussed with local government and meetings, but just want it to work. Lewisham's green flag served largely to justify the ways that Lewisham and DCLG between them chose to spend the money. Even Tower Hamlets for a green flag for community engagement, which I think rather devalued the system.

Eric Pickle's alternative is to insist that local government releases details of all expenditure items over £500 - which I can't see being very helpful. He imagines an army of armchair auditors; he'd do better with professionals, but probably doesn't want to pay for them.

My thoughts returned yesterday to the point of London Boroughs at a meeting about the use of social media in the Central London HQ of a large chain of estate agents [this is inaccurate - note following correction], doing their Community Social Responsibility bit on behalf of Civic Voice, the umbrella group for civic societies such as SydSoc. I wasn't able to pick up an attendance list, but I think I was the only person there from a Civic Society - although my name badge affiliation was given as Sydenham Civic Society, which may be a good thing, since I wasn't representing SydSoc in any official way.

I fear I may have been too aggressive, but lazy use of the word 'community' just gets me going. Good evidence that it has become debased is that if you search for it on this Forum's search function, you get

The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: community.

Many of the contributions - which I think were generally excellent - came from speakers who I have met at events organised by a group called Networked Neighbourhoods - on whose site the video of Liz Dart posted earlier on this thread is to be found. Where we disagreed was in the quality of Lewisham's use of social media, and in particular Forums such as this, which I criticise on the thread 'Lewisham Comms'. For Networked Neighbourhoods representatives, Lewisham is one of the best, and as evidence they mentioned the Council’s open dialogue with the community, Our Lewisham, Our Say, which Chris Best posted a link to on this thread. I can't say I was ever that impressed with this exercise - it never seemed as lively as this site or other local Forums such as SE23.com or Brockley Central. However, I can't give further evidence, because it is no longer on-line. At another point, one of the speakers at yesterday's event pointed out that with social media, what you write is permanent, so you need to be careful. Not, however, if you insist that discussion is on platforms you control, where if convenient you can wipe out history.

Another speaker, with some important role in David Cameron's Big Society thinking, I believe, also mentioned the importance in use of social media of measuring results by outputs, rather than inputs, which everyone should be able to agree on. It is interesting, then, that the evidence of Lewisham's good use of social media is the input it made into 'Our Lewisham, Our Say', even though, ten years ago when Lewisham's Mayor & Cabinet system was introduced, a piece in the Guardian, discussed in the thread linked to previously, rightly identified output measures

Paul Richards, Society Guardian, 10 Jan 2001 wrote:the true test of the new political system will be whether the tenant with the broken window, the library user wanting longer opening hours, or the dog walker wanting a graffiti-free park, will notice any difference

Networked Neighbourhoods' endorsement of Lewisham's performance, however, can be explained by its being funded by Capital Ambition, and so part of the London Boroughs ecosystem. We need local government, but ordinary Londoners don't really identify with their Boroughs. However, local government officers and councillors, like all of us, want to be loved - and paid. The energy in this particular ecosystem comes largely from DCLG funding, which will come from being seen to be doing good things for the community - but please don't ask what this actually means. So you get 'community groups' who are prepared to engage with London Boroughs, paid by support for their particular projects, in return for being used to tick boxes to keep the DCLG money coming. But any real, spontaneous manifestation of community spirit and attitude, such as this Forum, you really don't want to know about.

Hugh Flouch, Networked Neighbourhoods wrote:Glad to hear that you got some value out of yesterday.

A point of clarification on what I said on behalf of Networked Neighbourhoods. The views I expressed about Lewisham Council referred to their attitude and practice only as it relates to citizen-run neighbourhood websites, which was very much more open and positive than most other councils we encountered during our research. I made no comment about 'Our Lewisham Our Say' or any of Lewisham Council's other online properties.

Neither are we funded by Capital Ambition. They were the leading sponsor of our research last year, for which we were grateful. However neither they nor any of the other sponsors (including Cisco, Experian and Cap Gemini) sought in any way to influence the findings of our research. Capital Ambition were a victim of the recent cuts and ceased to exist this Spring.

Thanks for coming along Tim to the event - and it was good to meet you and hear your views. We were really happy to host the event with civic voice and it was fantastic to see so much lively debate. Our research tells us that a sense of community is important to over 70% of people nationally and that's why we have developed www.RightmovePlaces.co.uk a free neighbour website & community building service (it went live a few weeks ago and is part of rightmove, the independent property search engine). After all, there are over 48,000 different areas in the UK and most don't have an online community forum (unlike East Dulwich, Sydenham and a number of other active online communities that we discussed). Look forward to meeting you again, Regards Marianina